Regarding our recent discussion about the comments of Fr Robert Taft, SJ, Ric Ballard of the Eastern Catholic Spiritual Renewal blog says this:
The sad fact, which the congregation [of the Doctrine of the Faith] also points out, is that because of the estrangement that we Catholics share with the Orthodox the “the fullness of universality“of the Church is not yet realized. I think this realization as taught by the former inquisitors demonstrates a fact that makes many Catholics uncomfortable, which the Archimandrite himself speaks of when he says ”we are no longer the only kid on the block, the whole Church of Christ, but one Sister Church among others”. Some have claimed that what the Archimandrite said is an innovation of his part and doesn’t officially represent the Catholic Church. However, this couldn’t be farther from the truth based on the following statement from the Balamand Declaration (par. 13), which is about the Catholic and Orthodox churches not holding the exclusive rights to be known as the only true churches of Jesus Christ: “On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to his Church – profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops – cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches“. For those that don’t know the Balamand agreement represents the official relations that Catholics currently hold with the Orthodox churches. As an official agreement it demonstrates that the Archimandrite represents well the official position of the Catholic Church.
Read the rest here.
It is unclear that the Balamand Agreement constitutes a magisterial act. It is a statement of a commission. It has not, as far as I know, been ratified by the pope. Thus, how it represents the “official position of the Catholic Church” is at best unclear.
The blog writer, interestingly enough, cites the CDF’s “RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH.” This document, when explaining Vatican II’s statement that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, says the following: “It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless, the word ‘subsists’ can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the ‘one’ Church); and this ‘one’ Church subsists in the Catholic Church.” RESPONSES, drawing from Lumen Gentium, defines the Catholic Church as “governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him.”
In treating the use of the term “sister churches,” RESPONSES does not say that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches are sister churches; rather, it says the Orthodox Churches “merit the title of ‘particular or local Churches,’ and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches.” (“…titulum merentur ‘Ecclesiae particulares vel locales’, et Ecclesiae sorores Ecclesiarum particularium catholicarum nuncupantur.”) Note the use of the plural, “Churches” (Ecclesiarum). The Orthodox Churches are sister Churches of those particular or local Churches that have full communion with Rome, not of the Catholic Church herself — the Church in which subsists the Church of Christ and which possesses all the elements of sanctification.
Thus, the Catholic Church is not merely one sister Church among many, as Archimandrite Taft so curiously asserts.
Father Taft does not assert that. He is speaking generally of Catholic churches. Give him more credit, he is a known and established scholar and not proposing a branch theory. The JOINT INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE involved in Balamand was sanctioned by the Pope himself but I guess that’s never good enough for people. If The Balamand Agreement doesn’t represent the official magisterium of the Catholic Church than it is the greatest act of deception on the part of the Catholic Church. If it did not represent the official relationship of the Catholic Church it should be called Balamand and swell ideas. As far as I know the Catholic Church has more integrity than you propose and does not need everything to sanctioned by an official correspondence from the papal chair. Even if the pope did just like other teachings of the Catholic Church, like the death penalty, they will say “well that’s not an infallible statement” or “it’s his theological opinion” or even “his pastoral council”. You don’t have to agree with it but don’t make or create arguments that have no real foundation in the Church’s teaching. Right I did cite the CDF because it clearly demonstrates that Orthodox churches are real churches and not second class ones and we can call them sister churches because according to (CDF) they only “lack something in their condition as particular churches”. Something any Catholic church could lack as well in different ways if say Rome was destroyed by a war or a papal controversy arose like we had in the middle ages. Lacking the fullness of the Petrine ministry in no way disqualifies a church from being part of the One True Church. Get over it you are not the “only kid on the block”.
It’s also my understanding that the Balamand agreement has little or no doctrinal status. And it is not especially helpful if you respond to those who raise questions or disagree with you by saying things like, “Get over it you are not the “only kid on the block.'”
Everyone has always known that separated Eastern churches are true particular churches – no doubt about that. But in the “Letter to the Presidents of the Conferences of Bishops” accompanying the “Note on the Expression ‘Sister Churches'”, 2000, par. 2, one finds the following:
“Unfortunately, in certain publications and in the writings of some theologians involved in ecumenical dialogue, it has recently become common to use this expression [i.e. sister Churches] to indicate the Catholic Church on the one hand and the Orthodox Church on the other, leading people to think that in fact the one Church of Christ does not exist, but may be re-established through the reconciliation of the two sister Churches.”
Moreover, Dominus Jesus states, “The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches . . . even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church . . .” (no. 17). Note that it says, “they lack full communion with the Catholic Church,” not full communion with the particular church of Rome.
And as the CCC says: “Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome ‘which presides in charity'” (CCC 834). As I’m sure you know, this last phrase is a quotation from St. Ignatius of Antioch around 100 A.D., and confirms the historical Catholic view that Ignatius was referring to Rome’s primacy when he made that statement.
You’re not going to find confirmation of Fr. Taft’s ecclesiology in any CDF or other Roman documents.
Mr. Ballard,
I never claimed to be the “only kind on the block.” I merely pointed out that a document you cited on your blog asserts that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, defined as “governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him” and that the term “sister Church” applies not to this Church but to the particular Churches that compose it.Obviously there is a difference between a vacant see at Rome (caused by bombs or what not) and the condition of a particular Church that denies in principle the fullness of what the Catholic Church teaches about the Petrine ministry. The first is a material privation; the latter, a formal denial.
Thomas,Of course The Balamand agreement has no doctrinal status nor is it binding. Never the less, it is an official resource that Catholics can use in dealing with the Orthodox churches. In fact, the COMMON DECLARATION OF POPE JOHN PAUL IIAND THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEW I OF CONSTANTINOPLE 2004 states that documents that come from the The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue are: “7. a suitable instrument for studying the ecclesiological and historical problems that are at the root of our difficulties, and for identifying hypothetical solutions to them.” Wow, is it that hard to understand that neither Father Taft nor myself use sister churches in the way that you propose. There is only one Church not 2 and the Orthodox churches all though they “lack something in their condition as particular churches” as (CDF) states are true churches. Note the word Catholic Church is being used in context of the Roman Catholic Church and those that are communion with her and not exclusively the One True Church of Jesus Christ. (DI) Not to mention the context of dominus iesus was for the Indian bishops who deal with religious syncretism. If Catholic Church is synonymous with the only True Church of Jesus Christ as you propose than we need to recind our policies against converting Orthodox Christians and Uniatism because they don’t belong to the True Church. It’s not Fr. Taft’s ecclesiology it’s been the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church since the Vatican II council. Since the council it’s been about restoring broken communion with both need not making them return to us. Get over it you are not the “only kid on the block”.
I know if I keep responding to comments I’ll be on here all day so I will leave off with this. Frankly, I bewildered by the fact that Roman Catholics will rally around the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue when the Orthodox admitted the need for the Pope as protos . However, everything else that doesn’t fit their agendas they throw out. For this reason I even turned to the most conservative source to demonstrate that Orthodox churches are not second class in the (CDF) document. Still it wasn’t enough. I think Mr. Nichols blog here constantly points this hypocrisy out on the part of Catholics. There seems to be a continual tendency to only accept teaching from the Church that suits their personal views.
And I, Mr. Ballard, demonstrated that your interpretation of the CDF document is false. You haven’t countered my argument at all but instead accuse as hypocrites those who disagree with you. Very, very bad form, Mr. Ballard!
What it comes down to for me, is how catholikos is the Catholic.
Not to say that the Roman church *isn’t* Roman, but now that we have a Pope from outside of Europe for the first time in 1000 years, there is an opportunity to become a lot less provincial, and a lot more universal.
But I’m not sure how the often ethnic parishes in America- both RCC and Orthodox- will be able to handle that. Let alone Eastern Rite Catholics, whose entire identity is linked to ethnic isolation.
I’m seeing the same thing locally *within* the Knights of Columbus. My parent council is about to split into two along ethnic lines- Vietnamese and English/Hispanic ( and they’re having real problems recruiting Hispanics due to the migrant nature of the community and the fact that undocumented workers don’t want to sign a Form 100 and prove that they are here).
I ask this as an outsider (EO) reading the “debate” on this blog, but could it be the case that the RCC’s position is inconsistent, both wanting to affirm Vat I, on the one hand, and wanting to affirm a post-Vat II conciliatory attitude, on the other? It seems to me that Mr. Zehnder, for instance, is taking a more strict interpretation of the documents in question, while Mr. Nichols and Mr. Ballard are aware of this nuance and change of tone. Or I could be completely mistaken.
Anyway, if I may add a word, I would caution the RC’s who are projecting a strong view of the supremacy or primacy of the Roman Bishop onto past statements. As most of the EO involved in ecumenical talks have affirmed along with RCs, there is strong historical precedent for the primacy of the Roman Bishop in the Anti-Nicene and Nicene eras, but as for the nature of this primacy, it was never articulated in detail either by council or by tradition, St. Ignatius’ statement above notwithstanding. Now, this doesn’t mean that you have to chuck the subsequent councils that took place in the West without the participation of the East, but it would be helpful if the past was respected in all its nuance. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that the early Church had a less developed ecclesiology (as it did with so many other issues) that only became more developed as historical circumstances warranted. To read the early Fathers as supporting current pronouncements without an awareness of the broader circumstances surrounding these statements is to treat them like timeless oracular pronouncements in Protestant fashion — a mistake, I want to be clear, that I am not necessarily accusing anyone of falling into here.
As for myself, I were being honest, I would have to agree with David Bentley Hart’s article, “The Myth of Schism.” Perhaps the greatest failing of the Early Church was not to settle matters of ecclesiology when there was unity, which has necessitated the development of differing ecclesiologies on all sides in the mean time. And perhaps while there is a schism in theory and amongst the hierarchies, the Church really still is one, even if we deny it. But I understand if you disagree with this, as you likely do. Anyway, for those interested, here is Hart’s article. It has been posted on a blog (which is not my own). http://fatherdavidbirdosb.blogspot.com/2012/05/myth-of-schism-by-david-bentley-hart.html
Much material for comment here. Mr. Ballard first said, ” If The Balamand Agreement doesn’t represent the official magisterium of the Catholic Church than it is the greatest act of deception on the part of the Catholic Church.” I suppose that the word “represent” here is ambiguous; the question is, what doctrinal authority does it have? Mr. Ballard concedes the point, it seems to me, when he says later, “The Balamand agreement has no doctrinal status nor is it binding.” If it has “no doctrinal status nor is it binding,” it seems to me that it can hardly be appealed to to elucidate the teaching of the Catholic Church toward the separated Orthodox churches.
Mr. Ballard also said that he is “bewildered by the fact that Roman Catholics will rally around the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue when the Orthodox admitted the need for the Pope as protos . However, everything else that doesn’t fit their agendas they throw out.” I don’t think that anyone here who is defending the Catholic position has appealed to the Joint International Commision, so I’m not sure to whom his comments refer.
JJ asks, “could it be the case that the RCC’s position is inconsistent, both wanting to affirm Vat I, on the one hand, and wanting to affirm a post-Vat II conciliatory attitude, on the other?” There is much to be said for this view, I think. The official position of the Catholic Church is that the Church of Jesus Christ, the Mystical Body of Christ, is simply the Catholic Church (both Latin and Eastern). This is embodied in a number of official documents, including several of Vatican II. (For documentation of this, you can consult an article of mine, “What is the Church of Jesus Christ? which you can find by googling.)
But in this ecumenical age many Catholic spokesmen are embarrassed by this teaching and hesitate to admit it, still less to proclaim it. They waffle with regard not just to Orthodoxy but even with regard to Protestants. This is unfortunate, in my opinion.
I should reframe my question a bit. I did not mean that individuals in ecumenical dialogue want to affirm both the doctrine of Vat I alongside a post-Vat II attitude. What I should have asked about is if the statements of Vat I and Vat II on Ecclesiology and the status of the Pope of Rome are consistent? Or even if they are consistent, are they in tension? I’ve come upon such claims, but as an outsider and a non-expert I really have no idea.
Furthermore, is there room for amendment to accommodate the Eastern Church (which isn’t to say that they wouldn’t have to budge themselves), especially give the unique historical relationship between the East and the West? In other words, what’s been affirmed throughout the centuries since the schism and is less amendable to revision and what is more recent and more amenable? I realize that this question is rather imprecise and requires an even more imprecise answer, but it means all the difference in the discussion here. Finally, how does Ut Unum Sint affect all this?
I would say more that the small-t Roman Catholic tradition is inconsistent on the meanings of the words “Catholic” and “Church”- as shown in the modern Feeneyite Heresy and the general rad-trad rejection of Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate.
This would indicate to me we have evolving doctrine on those points of Ecclesiology in the Latin Rite; evolving doctrine that actually impacts our view of salvation and the possibility thereof (Extra Ecclesiam Nullas Salvas- it all turns on our definition of Ecclesiam, which I claim need not be visible).
Feeneyite “heresy” … You should call the CDF and let the know pronto! They have been saying their position is Catholic publicly since 1988 and privately since well before that. I am on my iPhone now I will give you the web links latter tonight!
Christopher